Americans’ anger at insurers is broader than health care—and what three policy reforms could do about it

A national flashpoint, and a wider set of grievances

In late 2024, a violent event pushed a long-simmering debate about insurance into the center of public attention. UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed outside the company’s annual investors conference in what authorities described as a targeted attack. Investigators reported finding bullet casings inscribed with the words “delay,” “deny” and “depose,” an unsettling echo of the title of an insurance-focused book: “Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It.”

The killing and the online reaction that followed exposed something more than outrage at a single company or a single line of business. Many people responded not by mourning Thompson, but by blaming UnitedHealthcare and other insurers for failing to pay for essential medical treatments. Some online voices went further, portraying the alleged shooter as a vigilante. That response was widely described as ghoulish, but it also revealed the depth of resentment many Americans feel toward insurers.

While the most visible anger has been directed at health insurance, the frustration extends across the broader insurance landscape. Homeowners insurance is becoming harder to obtain in many states even as coverage shrinks. Auto insurance rates are rising sharply. Taken together, these trends are fueling discontent with insurers of all kinds—discontent that can be amplified when people feel they are paying for security but receiving uncertainty instead.

Why claim denials and delays trigger the most outrage

Insurance is built on a promise: policyholders pay premiums in exchange for the insurer’s commitment to pay covered claims promptly and fairly. When people believe that promise has been broken, the reaction can be intense. Recent news stories about health insurance denials have highlighted that point, and policyholders often describe similar patterns across other types of coverage.

In the view of an insurance scholar, the most common complaints follow a familiar sequence. Consumers say insurers delay paying some claims, deny other valid claims, and force policyholders to defend themselves in court. The allegation is that these tactics can increase profits by cutting claim costs. Whether or not every disputed claim fits that description, the perception matters: when a family believes it is being worn down by bureaucracy or legal complexity, trust collapses quickly.

It is also important to recognize that not every claim dispute is evidence of bad faith. Many disagreements arise from genuine uncertainty about what caused a loss or how much should be paid. A common example is roof damage: was it caused by hail (often covered) or by wear and tear (often not covered)? These are the kinds of factual questions that can lead to good-faith disputes. Still, the public anger tends to surge when policyholders believe denials stem from inadequate investigations or from reasons that feel spurious.

The problems often start before anyone files a claim

One reason insurance conflicts can feel so destabilizing is that many consumers do not fully understand what they are buying. For homeowners, auto, and many other types of insurance, companies often do not provide copies of policy language or accessible summaries of policy terms to prospective policyholders. Even when consumers do have access to the policy, many do not read it—or cannot easily understand it—because policies are long, complex legal documents.

Insurance also asks consumers to anticipate future scenarios: the many ways a loss could occur, and the many problems that could result if it does. Most people cannot realistically forecast every type of damage, medical event, or liability risk they might face. As a result, they often focus on a few key terms and otherwise rely on a general belief that their insurer will be there when it counts—reinforced by familiar advertising promises about being “in good hands” or having a “good neighbor.”

Then, when coverage is needed, consumers may discover significant protection gaps. Health insurance can involve a tangle of limitations tied to provider networks, medical necessity rules, and preauthorization requirements. Homeowners may reasonably expect to be fully covered for major losses, yet insurers have been cutting back coverage as they respond to rising costs associated with inflation and climate change.

When disaster strikes, these gaps can feel like a betrayal. People who believed they had purchased peace of mind may instead find themselves negotiating, appealing, hiring help, or litigating—often at the worst possible moment. The result is a widespread sense that Americans are not getting the security they already paid for.

Why trust matters—and why the market may not fix this on its own

Rebuilding trust in insurance is difficult, but it is also essential. Insurance functions as a key protector of financial security for the American middle class—when it works as promised. The recent public reaction to high-profile health insurance disputes, and to the killing of a prominent executive, suggests that many people believe it is not working well enough.

The argument from the insurance scholar is that the industry will not change by itself. Insurers face financial pressures from increasing losses and intense market competition. In that environment, companies have incentives to manage costs aggressively, including claim costs. If the public goal is for insurance to reliably serve as a financial safety net, lawmakers and regulators may need to intervene more directly.

Based on research into how claim disputes arise and how consumers experience the system, three broad reform areas stand out: better information, minimum coverage standards, and effective remedies when insurers act unreasonably.

Reform 1: Make the insurance market work better through clearer information

Markets function best when participants have meaningful information. In insurance, the imbalance is obvious: companies understand policy language and claims practices far better than most consumers. One proposed reform is for regulators to require that key information about coverage be available in an accessible format for all types of insurance.

This is not simply about making documents available; it is about making them usable. If consumers cannot easily learn what is covered, what is excluded, and what conditions apply, they cannot compare products in a way that rewards better coverage and fairer practices. The result is a market where price and branding can dominate decision-making, even though the true value of insurance is revealed only after a loss.

Consumers also need information about insurer quality. A central measure of quality is whether a company pays claims promptly and fairly. Yet consumers do not have much reliable information about that today. The proposed solution is mandated disclosure—so that consumers can see, in a standardized way, how insurers perform on claim handling and payment practices.

In practical terms, better disclosure could shift incentives. If insurers know that claim performance is visible and comparable, they may have stronger reasons to invest in fair processes and timely resolutions, not just marketing. For consumers, it could mean fewer surprises and a clearer understanding of what they are purchasing.

Reform 2: Consider minimum coverage standards, especially for homeowners insurance

A second reform focuses on the product itself. As insurers cut back on coverage to reduce costs, states may want to consider minimum coverage standards—particularly for homeowners insurance, where policyholders often assume broad protection for major losses.

There is historical precedent for lawmakers setting baseline terms. New York addressed a similar issue in 1943 by legislatively adopting a Standard Fire Policy, which was later copied in many states. The idea was to establish a minimum floor of coverage that all insurers must provide, reducing the risk that consumers would unknowingly purchase inadequate protection.

Decades later, the Affordable Care Act took a comparable approach in health insurance by requiring coverage of 10 “Essential Health Benefits.” In both examples, lawmakers treated insurance coverage as too important to be left entirely to market variation. The principle was not that every policy must be identical, but that every policy must meet a minimum standard of meaningful protection.

The current argument is that states should again evaluate whether coverage has become too thin or too variable—especially in homeowners insurance, where consumers may face shrinking protection even as it becomes harder to obtain a policy in the first place. Minimum standards could reduce the gap between what consumers reasonably expect and what policies actually deliver.

Reform 3: Strengthen remedies when insurers act unreasonably

The third reform area addresses what happens when the system breaks down. When insurers are found to have acted unreasonably—such as denying claims after inadequate investigations or for reasons that do not hold up—policyholders need effective remedies.

The problem is not only the financial shortfall from a denied or underpaid claim. It is also the burden placed on policyholders: the time, effort, and stress required to fight for what they believe they were owed in the first place. Even if an insurer eventually relents, the promise to settle claims promptly and fairly has still been compromised.

One example cited in the discussion comes from a 2023 investigation that concluded that, in the wake of Hurricane Ian, some Florida insurance companies aggressively sought to limit payouts by altering the work of adjusters who inspected damaged homes. Some policyholders and their families reportedly had their claims reduced by 45% to 97%. A nonprofit insurance industry watchdog group, the American Policyholder Association, said it found “compelling evidence of what appears to be multiple instances of systematic criminal fraud perpetrated to cheat policyholders out of fair insurance claims.”

In situations like these—where the allegation is not a close call but unreasonable conduct—requiring additional compensation to policyholders and creating stronger disincentives for insurers could help level the playing field. The goal is not to eliminate legitimate disputes. Rather, it is to ensure that when an insurer’s conduct is found to be unreasonable, the consequences are significant enough to deter repeat behavior and to compensate consumers for the added burden of enforcing the contract.

From rage to regulation: what these reforms aim to change

The intense reaction following the killing of Brian Thompson made visible a deep reservoir of anger toward insurers. That anger has been most prominent in health insurance, but it is reinforced by developments in other markets, including homeowners and auto insurance, where consumers report rising costs and shrinking protection.

The three reform areas described above share a common purpose: to narrow the gap between what consumers think insurance is and how it can function in practice. Better information aims to reduce confusion and improve competition on meaningful terms. Minimum standards aim to ensure that essential protections do not erode as market pressures rise. Stronger remedies aim to discourage unreasonable claim handling and to reduce the burden on policyholders forced to fight for benefits.

None of these steps promises an instant fix. Insurance is complex, and the pressures on the industry—rising losses, inflation, and competition—are real. But the argument is that if insurance is to remain a reliable protector of middle-class financial security, it must work better than it does for many people today. Moving from rage to regulation, in this view, is not about punishing an industry for its own sake; it is about ensuring that the central promise of insurance—timely, fair payment of covered claims—holds up when it matters most.

Key takeaways

• Public frustration with insurers extends beyond health coverage to homeowners and auto insurance, where access, rates, and coverage levels are major concerns.
• Consumers are often most outraged when they believe insurers delay, deny, or force costly legal fights over valid claims.
• Many problems begin before a claim, because policy language is complex and key terms are not always presented in accessible summaries.
• Three proposed reform paths are: clearer standardized disclosures, minimum coverage standards (especially for homeowners), and stronger remedies when insurers act unreasonably.